Summary
Restrictions protecting serious secrets of private life and trade secrets are applied in accordance with the portions in which the secrets are recorded and the requirements for the application.
3.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
Only by narrowing the portion to be protected can protection of secrets be prevented from spreading into concealment of the entire trial. The preceding section confirmed that record access for a third party who has substantiated party status or interest, and public-interest inspection of finalized records, are governed by different requirements. Along the same line, the question now, taking up records that contain secrets, is whether a single ground of secrecy can conceal the entire case. The question here concerns how far the portion subject to protection should be limited, and how that limitation meshes with the threshold of the access route.
Article 163 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Where there is a prima facie showing that any one of the following subparagraphs applies, the court may, upon application by a party, by decision limit the persons who may apply for inspection and copying of the portions of the litigation records in which secrets are written, and for the issuance of certified copies, duplicates, and abstracts of the portions of written judgments, decisions and transcripts in which secrets are written (hereinafter referred to as 'inspection, etc., of portions in which secrets are written') to the parties." This language fixes the subject of the application as the parties, the court's means as a decision, and the object as the portions in which secrets are written. The secrets enumerated in the subparagraphs are grave secrets concerning a party's private life and trade secrets held by a party.
This links the language to the settled application that conforms to it. Portions in which secrets are written refer to specific portions of records that contain statutory secrets. What the provision takes as the object of protection is not the record as a whole but that portion, and for that portion the method applied is to limit the persons who may apply, after satisfying the application requirements, to the parties. Accordingly, hearings, written judgments, and litigation records each have different access requirements, and where access takes place outside the scope of statutory restrictions, the entrance to this remedy opens. These two determinations remain distinct stages: designation of the portion and opening of the route.
The strongest counterargument arises from the point that partial disclosure alone may reveal identity. Even if the persons who may apply for inspection are limited to the parties, if the remaining fragments of the record are pieced together, who the party is and what circumstances the party is in may be reverse-traced. In that event, protection that merely divides zones becomes substantially useless, and while restrictions are imposed portion by portion, the principle of disclosure may in effect collapse. The disadvantages arising from exposure of secrets and the residual risk of reverse tracing are not erased. Yet that loss alone cannot convert the inclusion of secrets into automatic non-disclosure of the entire record, because the unit of protection is the portion in which secrets are written, and whether the application requirements are satisfied must be determined for each such portion.
In this scene, Plaintiff A demands the provision of the entire record on the ground of an open trial, and Defendant B asserts the risk arising from disclosure of an address. The risk of address disclosure may fall within the ground of secrets concerning private life, but the mere fact that such ground is recognized does not make the entire record automatically non-public. Only when the designation of the portion in which secrets are written that becomes the object, the application for inspection and eligibility, the decision restricting disclosure, the portions designated for protection, and the type of written judgment are placed together can an adjudication be formed. From the scene alone, the ground and scope of the restrictive decision, and how far the portions designated for protection extend, cannot be confirmed, and therefore that scope remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is to identify and protect the portions falling within the ground of secrecy while judging access to the remaining scope by separate requirements. What is not permitted is the method of converting the entire record into an object of concealment on the sole ground that it contains a single secret. The distinction of requirements and the limitation to portions examined above are maintained together.
3.2The Conditions That Block Relief
This observation becomes the starting point of the present stage. What is asked here is whether the entire case must be concealed if there are secrets. Dividing the portions designated for protection from the rest of the record is the first task of this question. If, undivided, the entire record is treated as a single mass, the scope of secret protection cannot be gauged.
The relevant language tailors the restriction on grave secrets of private life and trade secrets to specific portions. Article 163 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that, where there is a prima facie showing, the court may, upon application by a party, by decision "limit the persons who may apply for inspection and copying of the portions of the litigation records in which secrets are written, and for the issuance of certified copies, duplicates, and abstracts of the portions of written judgments, decisions and transcripts in which secrets are written (hereinafter referred to as 'inspection, etc., of portions in which secrets are written') to the parties." In this language, the object is the portions of the litigation records in which secrets are written, the acts are inspection and copying and the issuance of certified copies, duplicates, and abstracts, and the subjects are the court that decides upon application and the applicants whose eligibility is limited, each being specified accordingly. Issues concerning other paragraphs of the provision lie outside the scope of interpretation of this language.
The point at which this language and the conclusion of this section meet is the breadth of the object. The author explains that the restriction on grave secrets of private life and trade secrets is applied in accordance with the portions in which secrets are written and the application requirements. The reason this definition is necessary is that the two stages must be distinguished. The determination of which portion falls within secrecy, and the determination of whom to limit as eligible to apply for that portion alone, are distinct tasks. Without designation at the former stage, the limitation at the latter stage cannot fix its object, and designation at the former stage alone, without limitation at the latter stage, does not restrict access. Only when both determinations are completed together does the route of remedy open. Therefore, if even one of the statutory requirements is not satisfied, the route of remedy is closed.
The strongest counterargument lies in the point that partial disclosure alone may reveal identity. It is the concern that, if the portions in which secrets are written are masked and the remainder opened for inspection, the party may be identified from the remaining narrative or context. That loss directly targets the value that grave secrets of private life and trade secrets possess. Cases in which allowing a third party inspection, etc., of portions in which secrets are written is liable to cause great impediment to a party's social life are precisely such cases. Even without denying this concern, the inclusion of secrets cannot be converted into automatic non-disclosure of the entire record. The risk of exposure pointed out by the counterargument is to be addressed in the direction of narrowing the scope of the designated portions anew or adjusting protective measures, and does not serve as ground for turning the entire record non-public on account of the designation.
Contrasting this scene with the conditions leaves few facts. Whether this assertion led to designation of the portions in which secrets are written, which portions were designated, and which of the application requirements were satisfied cannot be determined from the scene alone. If access to the designated portions has been restricted, the conclusion applies as it stands that if even one of the statutory requirements is not satisfied, the route of remedy is closed. However, the extent to which the object documents or the ground and scope of the restrictive decision cannot be confirmed remains undetermined. If the ground of protection is confirmed to be protection against harm to life or body, the inclusion of parties and the scope of access must be set differently.
The conclusion this section permits is not that the entire case must be concealed merely because there are secrets. If a specific portion of the records containing statutory secrets has been designated and access to that portion has been restricted, then if even one of the statutory requirements is not satisfied, the route of remedy is closed. A conclusion that, beyond this scope, turns even undesignated portions automatically non-public, or justifies total concealment while omitting designation itself, is not drawn from this section. Conversely, reading the record as closed in its entirety merely because designation and requirements are in place also does not accord with the language.
3.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
Record access for the parties and for a third party who has substantiated an interest, and public-interest inspection of finalized records, are governed by different requirements. Under this premise, Plaintiff A demands the provision of the entire record on the ground of an open trial, and Defendant B asserts the risk arising from disclosure of an address. Defendant B's assertion opposes the demand for provision in its entirety without indicating how far in the record the statutory secrets extend. The question that remains, then, is whether the entire case must be concealed if there are secrets, and where the boundary lies that this answer is unable to draw.
As the language answering this question, Article 163 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act calls inspection and copying of the portions in which secrets are written, and the issuance of certified copies, duplicates, and abstracts, "inspection, etc., of portions in which secrets are written." It provides that where there is a prima facie showing that any one of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1) applies, the court may, upon application by a party, by decision limit the persons who may apply for inspection, etc., of portions in which secrets are written to the parties. The subparagraphs set out as requirements grave secrets concerning private life and the concern of impediment to social life, and trade secrets held by a party. The subjects the language addresses are third parties whose eligibility to apply is limited, the acts are inspection, etc., of portions in which secrets are written, and the conditions are a prima facie showing and a decision of the court.
The thread linking this language and the conclusion of this section is that the unit of restriction is the portion in which secrets are written. The restriction on grave secrets of private life and trade secrets is applied in accordance with the portions in which secrets are written and the application requirements. If a specific portion is not distinguished from the record as a whole, the restriction extends to cover even the spaces left empty. Where the object documents or the ground and scope of the restrictive decision cannot be confirmed, the author, distinguishing matters for which the materials of adjudication are not specified from matters incapable of determination, leaves them undetermined. This distinction does not mean abandoning confirmation, but means that no definitive adjudication is placed upon the unconfirmed range.
Partial disclosure alone may reveal identity. This counterargument most directly targets the risk of address disclosure advanced by Defendant B, and pinpoints the loss that even the thirty lines inspected suffice to locate the place where mail is received. Moreover, the discomfort is also set out that if restrictions are imposed portion by portion, the principle of disclosure may in effect collapse. Even so, the inclusion of secrets cannot be converted into automatic non-disclosure of the entire record. Because the restriction is tied to the language of a prima facie showing, a decision of the court, and the portion in which secrets are written, the concern over identity exposure is addressed by a judgment narrowing that area. The unfavorable aspects pointed out by the counterargument are not erased; only the frame of the conclusion is maintained.
In this scene, the only facts that can be confirmed are Plaintiff A's demand for provision in its entirety and Defendant B's assertion of the risk of address disclosure. Where in the record the secrets are contained, which areas have received protective designation, and which type of written judgment was applied for are not settled. Accordingly, this scene cannot determine which documents constitute the portions in which secrets are written, nor to what scope the restrictive decision extends. In their place, matters for which the materials of adjudication are not specified, because the object documents or the ground and scope of the restrictive decision cannot be confirmed, remain undetermined rather than incapable of determination. If the ground shifts to protection against harm to life or body, parties may also be included, and therefore it is not handled within the same scope of access as secret protection.
The conclusion this section permits is that the entire record is not concealed on the single ground that there are secrets, and that the restriction is addressed within the scope of confirming the portions in which secrets are written and the application requirements. The conclusion not permitted is to turn the entire record automatically non-public on the ground that there are no materials, or to place a verdict of unavailability of relief immediately upon the unconfirmed range.
3.4The Records Needed for Determination
Only by designating narrowly the portions in which secrets are written can protection of secrets be prevented from spreading into concealment of the entire trial. The premise confirmed earlier is that record access for a third party who has substantiated party status or interest, and public-interest inspection of finalized records, are governed by different requirements. Under this premise, the present stage deals together with the question whether the entire case must be concealed if there are secrets, and the follow-up question of which records must be examined to make that judgment. Leaving the two persons' assertions in the scene as they stand, the analysis does not decide here what scope to draw from those assertions alone. Instead, the kinds of materials to be used for adjudication are selected first.
The relevant language for this problem is Article 163 paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. This language divides the record portions that become the object into "portions of the litigation records in which secrets are written" and "portions of the written judgments, decisions and transcripts in which secrets are written." And the manner of restriction is a decision limiting the persons who may apply for inspection, etc., of those portions to the parties, and it is made by the court upon application by a party. The subparagraphs enumerate grave secrets of private life and trade secrets as the ground for that limitation.
The reason this language must be linked to the stage adjudication is that the object and scope of restriction are fixed. The provision points not to the record as a whole but to "the portions in which secrets are written," and limits who may apply for inspection, etc., of those portions. Therefore, to adjudicate the stage, there must be materials recording where in which records the portions containing secrets are situated, what prima facie showing became the ground of restriction, and how the scope of the persons to be limited was set. This determination adjudicates the stage solely on the basis of materials recorded in the application for inspection and eligibility, the decision restricting disclosure, the portions designated for protection, and the type of written judgment. These four kinds of records point to different places, and none of them alone can stand in for whether the record as a whole is disclosed.
Even if the places containing secrets are erased and the remaining record is shown, the assertion is that if one can infer who the related persons are from the facts or the flow of documents written in the remaining places, the protection is no more than formal. Further follows the concern that if restrictions are imposed portion by portion, the principle of disclosure may in effect collapse. These losses and discomforts cannot be denied. Yet the inclusion of secrets cannot be converted into automatic non-disclosure of the entire record. What the provision takes as the object of limitation is a specific portion, and the means of limitation is a decision limiting the persons who may apply to the parties. The possibility of inference pointed out by the counterargument may be a circumstance to be considered in setting the scope of the restriction, but that circumstance cannot be taken as ground for turning the inclusion of secrets into non-disclosure of the record as a whole.
In the synthetic scene, the only facts confirmed are two assertions. The defendant's assertion appears to reach secrets concerning private life and the concern of great impediment to social life, but in which records and in which portions the address is written, and whether there was a prima facie showing of what impediment would arise if inspection were allowed to a third party, are not settled in this scene. The plaintiff's demand, too, stops at the general ground of an open trial, and is not specified as to which records and in what scope are being requested. Therefore, it cannot be known which of the application for inspection and eligibility, the decision restricting disclosure, the portions designated for protection, and the type of written judgment just confirmed exist, nor how their ground and scope are recorded. When the object documents or the ground and scope of the restrictive decision cannot be confirmed, the stage cannot be determined, and it is not filled in with conjecture.
The conclusion permitted at this stage is confined to the narrow judgment that secrets are written in specific portions of the record, and that the requirements and procedures limiting inspection of those portions to the parties are established. The conclusion not permitted is the judgment that if even one secret is confirmed, the entire case records need not be handed over to anyone. The language examined above points to the portion as the object of restriction only, and cannot be read as a provision converting the record as a whole into automatic non-disclosure. Conversely, the judgment that there is no restriction whatsoever, or that all records must be handed over unconditionally, cannot be drawn from this language either. What this section leaves is the question of which records will be the basis of judgment, and the places where those records are absent are left undetermined.
3.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
Having accepted the distinction that the requirements for access to records by third parties who have demonstrated their standing or interest, and for public-interest inspection of finalized records, are different, the question this time, on the basis of that distinction, is what change overturns the existing stage determination. It is confirmed here once more that the scope to be protected must be narrowed, lest protection of secrets spread into concealment of the entire trial.
The text of Article 163 of the Civil Procedure Act answers this question. Paragraph (1) provides that, where there is a demonstration that a grave secret of private life or a trade secret is stated therein, the court may, upon motion of a party, by ruling, limit the persons who may apply for inspection, etc. of the parts containing secret entries to the parties. Here the subject is the parties, the act is a ruling of the court upon motion, and the conditions are the demonstration of a statutory secret and the limitation of the designated parts. This text provides only a device for narrowing the persons who may access the parts in which secrets are stated; it does not simultaneously prescribe the standard for judging whether the records as a whole should be provided.
This text and the conclusion of this section come directly into contact at this point. What the court may limit is the parts containing secret entries, and the effect is to narrow the persons who may apply for inspection, etc. of those parts to the parties. At this point the reason why the scope of protection of secrets and the scope of protection from harm to life or person must be considered separately becomes apparent. The former is oriented toward restricting access centered on the specific parts of the records that contain statutory secrets, whereas if the ground shifts to the latter, the object of protection and the scope of access may change. Accordingly, when it shifts to protection from harm to life or person, the parties may also be included, so it is not treated as within the same scope of access as protection of secrets; and when the designated change is confirmed, the existing determination on blocking and effectiveness is discarded and the determination is redone from the stage.
The strongest counterargument targets the point that even partial disclosure may reveal identity. Even if only the parts containing secret entries are restricted, the party may be identified from a combination of the remaining records, and Defendant B's assertion of the risk arising from exposure of the address also remains through that gap. The disadvantage also remains that, if repeated restrictions on parts accumulate, the principle of disclosure is weakened in practice. However, the conclusion that the inclusion of secrets cannot be turned into automatic non-disclosure of the entire records is maintained. It is not extended in the direction of concealing the entire records, beyond the demonstration of the parts containing secret entries and the scope limited by the court's ruling.
In this scene, the facts relevant to this section are two. The circumstance of a public trial is closer to other grounds of access, such as public-interest inspection of finalized records, while the risk of exposure of the address is an assertion that there are parts in need of protection. What can be confirmed between the two assertions is the work of designating the parts containing secret entries and, as protected designated parts, recording the request for inspection, the decision on qualifications and restrictions on disclosure, and the type of judgment. The parts where the subject documents or the grounds and scope of the restriction decision cannot be confirmed remain undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is restriction of access tailored to the demonstration of the parts containing secret entries and the requirements for a motion; it does not permit a conclusion leading to automatic non-disclosure of the entire records. If the ground shifts to protection from harm to life or person, the scope of access and the object of protection must be examined anew from the beginning, and the existing determination on blocking and effectiveness cannot be maintained as is. This conclusion, however, does not erase the risk of identity disclosure from partial disclosure or the inconvenience left by repeated restrictions.
3.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
Up to this point the question was whether the entire case could be concealed merely because secrets are contained in it, and the front is now narrowed by one more step. What remains at issue in this scene is from which parts the actual risk arises, and to what scope the means of preventing that risk must be limited.
The text that answers this question is paragraph (1) of Article 163 of the Civil Procedure Act. That provision states: "Where there is a demonstration that the case falls under any one of the following subparagraphs, the court may, upon motion of a party, by ruling, limit the persons who may apply for the inspection or copying of the parts of the litigation records in which secrets are stated, or for the issuance of certified copies, transcripts, or extracts of the parts of judgments or minutes in which secrets are stated (hereinafter referred to as 'inspection, etc. of the parts containing secret entries'), to the parties." The grounds placed thereafter in Article 163 of the Civil Procedure Act are grave secrets of private life and trade secrets, and the requirements of each are set as written. The subject this text indicates is the party who has made the demonstration, the object is the parts in which secrets are stated, and the method is a ruling of the court upon motion.
There is a reason the text limits the object to 'parts.' So long as this definition stands, the unit of protection is not the entire records but those parts. That is to say, the circumstance that secrets are mixed into some material is only the beginning of the restriction, and the scope to which the restriction extends is bound to the specific parts that contain those secrets. Since the stages of motion and demonstration, and the court's ruling, overlap here, the existence of a secret and the restriction of access are different judgments.
This counterargument targets the point that, if one combines the remaining records beside the parts left under protection, a person can be traced, and it adduces as a loss the resulting invasion of private life or disruption of daily living. Yet this circumstance cannot convert the inclusion of secrets into automatic non-disclosure of the entire records. While leaving intact the object and procedure set by the text, the harm pointed out by the counterargument can be read in the judgment designating the parts to be protected. The concern must nevertheless be left standing together that, if restrictions on parts are repeated, the principle of disclosure may collapse in practice, and the conclusion is not extended to one that eliminates this concern.
The facts confirmed in the synthetic scene are that Plaintiff A invokes the public trial as the basis for demanding provision of the entire records, and that Defendant B asserts the risk arising from exposure of the address. Defendant B's assertion is placed alongside the circumstance of the public trial, and the scene contains no fact that one side prevailed. It is also not settled from which parts of the records the risk arises, or whether designation of those parts has already been made. Circumstances where the subject documents or the grounds and scope of the restriction decision cannot be confirmed remain undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is that the entire records cannot be made automatically non-disclosure merely because secrets are contained in them, and that the restrictions on grave secrets of private life and trade secrets are argued within the scope of the parts containing secret entries and the requirements for a motion. By contrast, it does not determine at this point whether there is a cumulative risk from partial disclosure, which parts must be protected, or under which qualifications one may inspect them.
3.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
The question of this section is whether the entire case must be concealed if there are secrets. Taking over from the preceding section the premise that the inclusion of secrets cannot be turned into automatic non-disclosure of the entire records, it asks to what scope the restrictions on grave secrets of private life and trade secrets are applied. This scene is not an actual case but merely a premise. In the end, the issue narrows to how far records containing secrets are to be protected.
This text shows the subjects divided into the party who makes the motion and the court, and the acts divided into the motion and the ruling. The permissible object is inspection, etc. of the parts in which secrets are stated, and what is restricted is the qualification of the persons who may make the motion.
The above text divides the requirements for a motion into two. The first is where a grave secret concerning private life is stated and, if inspection, etc. were permitted to a third party, there is a concern that the party's social life would be greatly impeded; the second is where a trade secret held by the party is stated. The restriction recognized by the court under Article 163 of the Civil Procedure Act attaches to the parts containing secret entries, that is, the specific parts of the records that contain statutory secrets. Protection is completed by limiting the qualification to make a motion for those parts to the parties, and closing along with them the remaining records that have been determined to contain no secrets does not accord with the design of the text.
Even if this scope-setting is viewed narrowly, the weight of the counterargument does not disappear. The point that even partial disclosure may reveal identity targets the actual loss that, when identifying information is scattered across multiple records and fragments of inspection are combined, the party is ultimately specified. Yet when set alongside the circumstance that the scope to be protected must be narrowed lest protection of secrets spread into concealment of the entire trial, that concern cannot overturn the conclusion that the inclusion of secrets cannot be converted into automatic non-disclosure of the entire records. The disadvantage shown by the counterargument remains as the task of fixing the scope of the designated parts with precision.
In this scene, the only fact falling within the scope of this section is that Defendant B's risk of exposure of the address was raised as a ground for protection of secrets. Whether that ground was demonstrated to the court, which parts of the records were designated as secret, and how the demand for provision overlaps with the parts containing secret entries among the litigation records were not settled by the scene and therefore remain undetermined. This conditional comparison is not an additional fact of an actual case but merely a test revealing that protection from harm to life or person constitutes a separate ground of protection.
Accordingly, the conclusion that the entire case must be concealed on the sole ground that secrets are contained is not permitted. When the requirements of grave secrets of private life and trade secrets have been demonstrated and there is a motion by a party, the judgment is concluded within the scope that the court may designate the persons who may make the motion as the parties, limited to the parts containing secret entries. This judgment operates only on the line of not converting the inclusion of secrets into automatic non-disclosure of the entire records.
3.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
If there are secrets, must the entire case be concealed? On the premise of the distinction in requirements between access to records by third parties and public-interest inspection of finalized records, as organized in the preceding section, this stage deals with how the party's secrets and safety are to be protected within a public trial, and how far this section is exclusively in charge. On this confrontation, the limits of partial protection are examined.
Paragraph (1) of Article 163 of the Civil Procedure Act provides: "Where there is a demonstration that the case falls under any one of the following subparagraphs, the court may, upon motion of a party, by ruling, limit the persons who may apply for the inspection or copying of the parts of the litigation records in which secrets are stated, or for the issuance of certified copies, transcripts, or extracts of the parts of judgments or minutes in which secrets are stated (hereinafter referred to as 'inspection, etc. of the parts containing secret entries'), to the parties." This text limits the subject of the motion to the parties and the subject act to inspection, etc. of the parts in which secrets are stated. The conditions are two: concern about impediment to social life arising from grave secrets of private life, and the statement of the party's trade secrets.
What this provision indicates is not the entire records but the parts in which secrets are stated. Accordingly, the scope that is the object of restriction and the subject and requirements for claiming the restriction are set together. The mere circumstance that secrets are included cannot be taken to mean that the entire litigation records fall within the parts containing secret entries, and on the premise of a demonstration, the court, by ruling upon motion, limits the persons who may make the motion to the parties. So long as this distinction is maintained, partial protection and concealment of the entire case are not the same thing.
Even after inspection, etc. of the parts containing secret entries is restricted, cases may arise in which, when the records outside are combined, the party or a third party can be identified. The provision places the ground of restriction in the demonstration under each subparagraph, the party's motion, and the court's ruling, and thus does not make the very fact of the inclusion of secrets a ground for non-disclosure of the entire records. The risk of exposure pointed out by the counterargument remains, but it remains as a task of review for narrowing the scope of partial restriction, and does not become a ground for conversion to concealment of the whole.
When the provision of the entire records demanded by Plaintiff A and the risk of exposure of the address asserted by Defendant B are contrasted with this condition, the scope of the demand for provision is left as is while the object of protection is narrowed to the specific parts in which secrets are stated. The scene, however, settled only A's demand and B's assertion, and did not determine which parts contain which secrets, or how the court designated the parts containing secret entries. The so-called undetermined state, where the presence or absence of a demonstration and the scope of the subject documents cannot be confirmed, leaves open the possibility of protection of specific parts.
What this section permits is partial restriction, tailored to the parts containing secret entries and the requirements for a motion, of grave secrets of private life and trade secrets; what it does not permit is automatic non-disclosure of the entire records on the ground of the inclusion of secrets.
3.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
After the analysis at the preceding stage confirmed the preceding distinction, this stage adjudicates the confrontation between Plaintiff A and Defendant B solely by the established text. In this scene, whether the court will hand over the entire records is not determined by the rationale of a public trial alone. Rather, the breadth of protection varies with how the parts containing secrets are designated.
Paragraph (1) of Article 163 of the Civil Procedure Act, the relevant text, provides: "Where there is a demonstration that the case falls under any one of the following subparagraphs, the court may, upon motion of a party, by ruling, limit the persons who may apply for the inspection or copying of the parts of the litigation records in which secrets are stated, or for the issuance of certified copies, transcripts, or extracts of the parts of judgments or minutes in which secrets are stated (hereinafter referred to as 'inspection, etc. of the parts containing secret entries'), to the parties." Here the subject is the parties, and the act is an application for inspection or copying of the parts in which secrets are stated and for the issuance of certified copies, transcripts, or extracts. The requirement is a demonstration concerning any one of the subparagraphs, and the court's ruling limits the persons who may apply for inspection, etc. to the parties.
Connecting this text with the conclusion of this section, protective measures are judged in accordance with the unit of designation called the parts containing secret entries and the requirements for a motion. Therefore, the stage of judgment on statutory disclosure and inspection must be read separately from the stage of judgment on protective measures. The question whether to conceal the entire records and the question whether to limit the inspection of specific parts are not the same determination. This distinction is rooted in the point that the object commonly indicated by the text of grave secrets of private life (subparagraph 1) and trade secrets (subparagraph 2) is "the parts in which secrets are stated."
The strongest counterargument points out that even partial disclosure may reveal identity. If other descriptions overlap in a sentence where the address has been erased, the party may be identified, and in such cases the exposed inconvenience and risk appear to be grounds for closing the entire records. Yet even if the loss aimed at by this counterargument is made clear, the inclusion of secrets cannot be converted into automatic non-disclosure of the entire records. Paragraph (1) provides only that inspection, etc. of the parts in which secrets are stated may be limited; it does not contain in its text the effect of blocking access to the entire case merely by the fact that such parts exist. The risk of identity disclosure emphasized by the counterargument must still be resolved in the work of fitting the object of protection to specific parts.
The facts confirmed in the synthetic scene are only Plaintiff A's demand and Defendant B's assertion. Which sentence is secret and how extensive the exposure is remain undetermined. If the designated conditions change, the judgment also changes.
The conclusion this section permits is narrow. Only the text of the relevant provision is used as the basis for adjudicating statutory disclosure and inspection and protective measures. Thus, the conclusion that the entire case can be concealed because secrets exist is not derived from this text, and a decision setting the scope of non-disclosure cannot be extended beyond the unit of parts prescribed by the text.
3.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
이 장면에서 법원이 마주하는 물음은 기록 전체의 제공 여부가 아니라 접근을 제한할 대상을 어디까지 정할 것인지이다. 판정할 부분은 이런 단계 안의 세부 구분이다.
법문은 제한의 대상과 신청의 요건을 함께 적는다. 민사소송법 제163조 제1항은 법원이 당사자의 신청에 따라 결정으로 소송기록 중 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분의 열람·복사, 재판서·조서 중 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분의 정본·등본·초본의 교부를 신청할 수 있는 자를 당사자로 한정할 수 있다고 정한다(민사소송법 제163조). 여기서 ‘비밀 기재부분’은 법정 비밀이 담긴 특정 기록 부분을 뜻한다. 문언은 제한의 단위를 전체 기록이 아니라 그 부분으로 잡는다.
그 문언과 이번 물음의 결론이 이어지는 지점은 부분이라는 단위이다. 사생활의 중대한 비밀과 영업비밀에 대한 제한은 비밀 기재부분과 신청 요건에 맞춰 적용된다(민사소송법 제163조). 따라서 비밀 포함을 기록 전체의 자동 비공개로 바꿀 수는 없다. 심리·판결서·소송기록의 서로 다른 접근 요건을 갖추고 법정 제한 밖의 범위에서 접근하는 경우는 그 범위에서 열리고, 해당 비밀·위해 보호 또는 법정 제외 사유가 인정되어 지정 부분의 접근이 제한된 경우는 그 부분에서 막힌다. 대상 문서나 제한 결정의 근거·범위를 확인할 수 없는 경우는 미확정으로 남는다.
반론은 부분으로 남겨 두는 대가를 겨냥한다. 부분 공개만으로도 신원이 드러날 수 있다는 것이다. 남은 문장에서 배경 사실이 짐작되면 지정 부분을 감춘 의미가 줄고, 열람을 거듭 제한하면 공개를 전제로 한 재판 기록의 접근이 실질적으로 줄어든다는 불리함도 남는다. 그러나 이 불리함이 인정되어도 비밀 포함을 기록 전체의 자동 비공개로 바꿀 수는 없다. 결론은 제한의 대상을 좁힌 채 유지된다.
합성 장면에서 확인되는 사실은 원고 A의 요구가 기록 전체의 제공이고, 피고 B의 주장이 주소 노출로 인한 위험뿐이라는 점이다. 이 두 주장을 놓고 보면 피고 B가 내세운 위험이 어떤 문서의 어떤 부분에 적힌 것인지, 그 위험이 사생활의 중대한 비밀에 해당한다는 소명이 있었는지는 정해져 있지 않다. 그러므로 어느 부분을 비밀 기재부분으로 지정할 수 있는지는 미확정으로 남는다. 열람신청과 자격·공개 제한 결정·보호 지정 부분·판결서 종류의 기록만이 판단의 자료이다. 이 자료로 사건 전체의 비공개 여부까지 확정할 수 없다.
이 절에서 허용되는 결론은 비밀이 적힌 특정 기록 부분에 대하여, 법정 요건의 소명을 전제로 신청할 수 있는 자를 한정하는 구별이다. 허용되지 않는 결론은 그 지정만으로 나머지 기록 전체까지 공개에서 벗어나게 되는 처리이다. 대상 문서나 제한 결정의 근거·범위가 확인되면 해당 범위에서 접근이 열리거나 막히고, 확인되지 않으면 미확정으로 남는다. 비밀이 있으면 사건 전체를 숨겨야 하는가라는 물음은 여기서 부분의 지정으로 답할 수 있다.
3.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
앞서 당사자·이해관계를 소명한 제삼자의 기록 접근과 확정 기록의 공익적 열람은 요건이 다르다는 절의 결론을 받아, 이번 단계는 공개된 재판과 기록 전체 제공의 요구가 맞선 자리에서 법정 공개·열람과 보호조치의 결과를 어떻게 구별할지 묻는다. 공개 법정에서 심리가 열려 있었다는 사실만으로 소송기록·재판서의 접근 요건이 충족되는 것은 아니며, 어떤 부분이 왜 닫히는지와 판단 자료가 아예 없는 경우를 나누어 살펴야 한다.
이 물음에 해당하는 문언은 민사소송법 제163조 제1항이다. 그 조문은 “①다음 각호 가운데 어느 하나에 해당한다는 소명이 있는 경우에는 법원은 당사자의 신청에 따라 결정으로 소송기록 중 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분의 열람·복사, 재판서·조서 중 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분의 정본·등본·초본의 교부를 신청할 수 있는 자를 당사자로 한정할 수 있다.”고 정하고, 그 사유로 “1. 소송기록 중에 당사자의 사생활에 관한 중대한 비밀이 적혀 있고, 제3자에게 비밀 기재부분의 열람 등을 허용하면 당사자의 사회생활에 지장이 클 우려가 있는 때”와 “2. 소송기록중에 당사자가 가지는 영업비밀이 적혀 있는 때”를 든다. 여기서 법원은 결정을 내리는 주체이고, 당사자는 신청 주체이며, 한정되는 대상은 ‘비밀 기재부분의 열람 등’을 신청할 수 있는 자로 특정된다. 각 호의 사유는 비밀이 기재된 부분과 그 열람을 제3자에게 허용할 경우의 지장 우려라는 조건에 붙는다. (민사소송법 제163조)
이 문언과 이 절의 결론을 잇는 핵심은 대상의 단위가 ‘비밀 기재부분’이라는 점이다. 비밀 기재부분이란 법정 비밀이 담긴 특정 기록 부분을 뜻하는데, 이 정의는 보호 범위를 문서 단위가 아니라 지정된 부분에 묶는다. 사생활의 중대한 비밀과 영업비밀에 대한 제한은 비밀 기재부분과 신청 요건에 맞춰 적용하므로, 제한이 인정되는 경우에도 남는 것은 지정 부분의 접근이 제한되는 효과일 뿐이다. 여기서 두 판단 단계를 나누어야 한다. 첫째는 해당 사유의 소명 여부이고, 둘째는 한정의 대상인 자와 부분이다. 심리·판결서·소송기록은 서로 다른 접근 요건을 갖추고 법정 제한 밖의 범위에서 접근하는 경우 열리고, 해당 비밀·위해 보호 또는 법정 제외 사유가 인정되어 지정 부분의 접근이 제한된 경우 막힌다. 미확정은 대상 문서나 제한 결정의 근거·범위를 확인할 수 없는 경우에 해당한다.
가장 강하게 겨냥하는 반론은 부분 공개만으로도 신원이 드러날 수 있다는 점이다. 비밀이 섞인 기록에서 남은 부분을 이어 읽으면 당사자나 제삼자가 특정되고, 그 식별이 곧 사생활 침해나 영업상 불이익으로 이어질 수 있다. 그 손실은 가상의 불편이 아니라 지정 부분의 보호가 사실상 빈 껍데기가 되는 결과를 가리키며, 보호조치가 노리는 가치를 정면으로 건드린다. 그러나 그렇더라도 비밀 포함을 기록 전체의 자동 비공개로 바꿀 수는 없다. 이 답은 반론이 지적한 위험을 지우지 않는다. 부분 공개가 신원 노출로 이어진다면 그 연결 자체가 제한 사유의 판단에 들어가야 하며, 지정 범위를 넓히는 방식으로 다루어질 수 있다. 그렇다고 비밀 기재부분의 특정과 신청 요건을 뛰어넘어 기록 전체가 자동으로 닫히는 규칙으로 옮길 수는 없다.
합성 장면에서 확인할 수 있는 사실은 두 당사자의 주장 대립뿐이다. 공개된 심리라는 사정은 법정 제한 밖의 범위에서의 접근 논거로 제시된 것이고, 주소 노출 우려는 보호를 요청하는 근거로 제시된 것이다. 다만 장면에는 어떤 문서인지, 제한 결정이 내려졌는지, 그 근거와 범위가 무엇인지가 정해져 있지 않다. 따라서 대상 문서나 제한 결정의 근거·범위를 확인할 수 없는 지금 상태는 미확정으로 남는다. 만약 보호 사유가 생명과 신체에 대한 위해 보호로 확인되면 당사자 포함 여부와 접근 범위를 달리 정해야 하며, 이 장면만으로는 위해 보호의 성립을 단정할 수 없다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 비밀이 있다는 사정 하나로 사건 전체가 숨겨진다고 말할 수 없고, 소명된 사유가 있어도 한정되는 것은 비밀 기재부분의 열람 등을 신청할 수 있는 자이다. 반대로 법정 제한 밖의 범위에서 심리·판결서·소송기록의 접근 요건을 갖춘 접근은 열리는 쪽에 두며, 대상 문서가 무엇인지나 제한 결정의 근거와 범위가 확인되지 않는 때에는 열림도 막힘도 단정하지 않고 미확정으로 남긴다. 허용되지 않는 것은 부분 보호의 반복을 들어 공개 원칙이 무너졌다고 선언하는 결론과, 비밀 포함을 기록 전체의 자동 비공개로 바꾸는 결론이다.
3.12Conclusion Carried Over to the Next Section
앞선 단계에서는 제삼자와 이해관계인의 접근 요건을 서로 다른 것으로 보아, 어떤 자료를 누구에게 열어 줄지 정하는 데 필요한 구별을 확인했다. 이제 그 구별 위에서, 기록 가운데 비밀이 담긴 부분을 어떻게 다루어야 하는지를 물어야 한다. 이런 장면에서 질문은 단순하다.
이 물음에 답할 근거는 민사소송법 제163조 제1항이다. 조문은 이렇게 정한다. "다음 각 호 가운데 어느 하나에 해당한다는 소명이 있는 경우에는 법원은 당사자의 신청에 따라 결정으로 소송기록 중 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분의 열람·복사, 재판서·조서 중 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분의 정본·등본·초본의 교부(이하 '비밀 기재부분의 열람 등'이라 한다)를 신청할 수 있는 자를 당사자로 한정할 수 있다." 각호의 사유는 소송기록 중에 당사자의 사생활에 관한 중대한 비밀이 적혀 있고 제3자에게 열람 등을 허용하면 사회생활에 지장이 클 우려가 있는 때, 그리고 당사자가 가지는 영업비밀이 적혀 있는 때이다. 여기서 법원이 정하는 대상은 '비밀 기재부분', 즉 법정 비밀이 담긴 특정 기록 부분이다.
이 문언이 가리키는 주체와 행위를 풀어 보면, 신청 주체는 당사자이고 그 신청에 따라 법원이 결정으로 제한의 범위를 정한다. 조문이 제한하는 것은 기록 전체가 아니라 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분의 열람·복사와 정본·등본·초본의 교부이고, 제한의 결과는 신청할 수 있는 자를 당사자로 한정하는 것이다. 비밀 기재부분이라는 표시와 신청 요건이라는 절차를 함께 둔 이유는 두 단계의 판단을 서로 붙여 두지 않기 위해서이다. 어느 부분이 비밀인지를 가리는 일과 그 부분의 열람 등을 누구에게 허용할지를 정하는 일은 나누어 판단한다.
그렇더라도 부분 공개만으로도 신원이 드러날 수 있다는 반론은 끝까지 남는다. 비밀이 든 한 페이지만 감추어도 나머지 기록의 조합이 그 당사자를 가리키고, 결국 공개된 판결문을 읽는 사람이 누구인지 특정하게 되면 제한은 실질 없는 것이 된다는 걱정이다. 여기에 더해, 제한을 한 번 한정하고 또 한정하다 보면 공개 원칙이 사실상 무너질 수 있다는 우려도 크다. 그러나 이러한 불편을 인정한다 해도, 비밀 포함을 기록 전체의 자동 비공개로 바꿀 수는 없다. 조문은 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분을 따로 표시하고 그 부분의 열람 등을 한정하는 방식을 택했고, 저자는 그 문언의 범위에서 판단한다. 신원 노출의 걱정은 부분 표시와 한정의 방식을 정할 때에 반영할 몫이지, 기록 전체를 숨기는 근거가 되지 않는다.
합성 장면으로 돌아와 보자. 이 장면에서 확인할 수 있는 것은 두 요구가 서로 다른 범위를 겨냥한다는 점이다. 원고의 요구는 기록 전체를 향하고, 피고의 주장은 주소라는 특정 정보를 향한다. 앞의 조건에 따르면, 법원이 비밀 기재부분을 지정하고 신청 요건의 소명이 있는지 따져 본 뒤 그 부분의 열람 등을 당사자로 한정할 수 있는지 열람신청과 자격·공개 제한 결정·보호 지정 부분·판결서 종류를 기록으로 남겨 판단한다. 장면만으로는 피고의 주소가 어느 기록에 어떻게 기재되어 있는지, 또 제한 결정이 내려졌는지가 정해져 있지 않다. 그러므로 주소 노출이 실제로 어느 범위에서 막혔는지는 미확정으로 남는다.
따라서 비밀이 있다는 사정 하나로 사건 전체를 숨겨야 한다는 결론은 성립하지 않는다. 법원은 비밀이 적혀 있는 부분을 특정하고, 그 부분의 열람 등을 신청할 수 있는 자를 당사자로 한정하는 방식으로 보호한다. 반대로, 비밀 표시를 하지 않은 나머지 기록에 대해서까지 자동으로 공개를 막는 것도 성립하지 않는다. 어떤 부분이 비밀인지, 어떤 요건이 소명되었는지, 어느 범위가 지정되었는지를 따로 기록으로 확인하지 않은 채 범위를 넓히거나 좁힐 수는 없다. 이 절이 그쳐야 할 자리는 여기이고, 그 너머의 물음은 넘겨야 한다. 상대방도 보지 못하게 할 수 있는 정보가 있는가?